Stage Of Pre-trial Investigation Research Articles

Organization and implementation of judicial control at the stage of pre-trial investigation in foreign countries

The scientific article examines the peculiarities of the organization and conduct of judicial control of the preliminary investigation in European countries. It was determined that judicial control in historical retrospect dates back to the Middle Ages, so it has a long practical experience of application. It has been established that in the national legal systems of European countries, judicial control is organized differently, therefore the scientific literature confirms the existence of two types of models of judicial control depending on the purpose of judicial control in a criminal process. The first type of models is characterized by the presence of investigative functions and powers in the field of investigative actions for the representatives of the judiciary, who are authorized to exercise judicial control over the pre-trial investigation. The second type of models of judicial control in European countries is organized in such a way that representatives of the judiciary in pre-trial investigation are empowered with powers that are limited to resolving issues related to monitoring the observance of the rights and freedoms of the participants in the pre-trial investigation, without decisive influence on the course of the pre-trial investigation. The peculiarities of the specialization of entities that perform the functions of judicial control were analyzed and it was determined that they are divided into judicial bodies that are not separated from general courts (they lack specialization); judicial bodies in which there are separate positions of investigative judges in general courts; specialized judicial bodies. The advantages and disadvantages of the models of the first and second type of organization of judicial control over pre-trial investigation in Europeancountriesareestablished. Theadvantages of the first-type models are the cost-effectiveness of the organization of judicial control, the second- type models are characterized by a higher degree of quality protection of the rights and freedoms of a person in pre-trial investigation due to the exclusive specialization of representatives of the judiciary. It was determined that the peculiarities of legal regulation of judicial control over pre-trial investigation in Ukraine allow us to conclude that it belongs to the second type of models. Depending on the degree of specialization, the Ukrainian model of judicial control provides for the position of an investigative judge in the system of courts of general jurisdiction.

A new look at models of pre-trial investigation based on information technology support

Abstract. In the article, based on the current legislation, new views on models of pre-trial investigation are considered. The article contains theoretical proposals for optimization and rationalization of pre-trial investigation as the main stage of pre-trial investigation in the criminal process of Ukraine based on the changes taking place in the conditions of digital transformation of society. Methodological bases of modeling of pre-trial investigation in criminal cases include the following criteria (elements) of individualization of the model: goals and tasks of pre-trial investigation; his place in the organization of criminal justice; the initial moment of investigation in a criminal case; structural construction of pre-trial investigation; organizational and legal status of bodies and officials who carry out this activity. It is noted that the crisis phenomena in the modern pre-trial investigation in criminal cases are caused by circumstances that, in turn, determine the need for reform: the construction of the pre-trial investigation is not fully correlated with the historical development and the convergence trends of accusatory and adversarial types of criminal proceedings; there is no unified approach of the state and the scientific community to determine the optimal structure of pre-trial investigation in criminal cases, which corresponds not only to the possibility of resisting the modern criminalization of society, but also stimulates further self-improvement; organizational and procedural contradictions between its forms are observed in the pre-trial investigation; confusion of the functions of criminal prosecution, detection and investigation of crimes, resolution of a criminal case and judicial control; competition of investigative and adversarial grounds at this stage of investigation in a criminal case. The pre-trial investigation with its tasks of establishing the circumstances of the committed crime, the written registration of all the evidence collected because of investigative actions, forms the investigative model of the criminal process. The content of the investigative model is related to the fact that the modern pre-trial investigation is based on written document circulation. The investigator plays the leading role.

Investigating judge as a guarantor of the principle of adversarialism at the stage of pre-trial investigation: analysis of international experience

Investigating judge as a guarantor of the principle of adversarialism at the stage of pre-trial investigation: analysis of international experience

Ensuring the legal interests of a person in pre-trial criminal proceedings

In the science of the criminal process, there is no unified vision of the essence of a person’s legitimate interests and guarantees of their provision at the stage of pre-trial investigation. Ensuring a legitimate interest at the stage of pre-trial criminal proceedings is not supported by the performance of duties by other participants. An effective guarantee of the realization of a person’s legitimate interests in pre-trial criminal proceedings should be the real possibility of going to court to challenge the decisions, actions or inaction of law enforcement agencies. The presence of such a legal possibility should stimulate law enforcement agencies to take active actions aimed at satisfying legitimate interests. The criminal procedural law must provide for a mechanism to protect the legal interests of a person, both those that directly follow from the criminal procedural norms and those that are not provided for by the criminal procedural law, but are consistent with the spirit and principles of criminal justice. It can be argued that the legitimate interests of a person in pre-trial criminal proceedings are general legal and not prohibited aspirations of a person. Ensuring the legal interests of a person at the pre-trial stage of the criminal process should be ensured by a general obligation (general obligation) to take active actions by state bodies aimed at ensuring legal interests. The guarantee of the realization of the legal interests of a person in pre-trial criminal proceedings is the legal regulation in the criminal procedural law of the procedure for judicial appeal of decisions, actions or inaction of law enforcement bodies (including pre-trial investigation bodies) that prevent the realization of general legal aspirations of a person at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings. The need for regulatory regulation of the procedure for judicial protection of legitimate interests is determined by their legal nature, which provides for regularities in the actions of the participants of criminal proceedings of an undefined nature.

Initiation of forensic examinations by the defence counsel: topical issues of forensic support

The article is devoted to the consideration of topical issues of initiation of forensic examinations by the defence counsel, as well as forensic support of this activity. The relevance of the topic is due to the fact that the initiation of forensic examinations by the defence counsel is an important aspect of the criminal process which affects not only the formation of the evidence base for the prosecution, but also for the defence, which can establish the circumstances that justify or mitigate the responsibility of the defendant. The article focuses on the fact that the defence counsel may obtain an expert opinion in three ways at the stage of pre-trial investigation: 1) defence counsel’s independent request to an expert or an expert institution to conduct an expert examination; 2) defence counsel’s initiation of a forensic examination by an investigating judge; 3) defence counsel’s initiation of a forensic examination by an investigator, coroner, or prosecutor. It is noted that the organisational activities of a defence counsel who plans to initiate a forensic examination before an investigator, coroner, or prosecutor include three stages: preparatory, working, and final. The author analyses all three stages of organisational activities of a defence counsel who plans to initiate a forensic examination, both from the criminal procedural and forensic sides. The author emphasises that when filing a relevant motion, a defence counsel should always clearly understand what specific purpose is being pursued and what result is desirable from the defence perspective. The author comes to the conclusion that forensic support for the defence counsel’s initiation of forensic examinations to the investigator, coroner, prosecutor is provided in the process of: preparation, submission of a petition, and familiarisation with the results of the examination.

Principles of Specific Expertise Use in Investigation of Crimes Against Foundations of National Security of Ukraine

During investigation of crimes against foundations of national security of Ukraine today, latest achievements of science and technology are quite actively used, therefore there is a need for a more rational organization of the procedure of proof and drawing the attention of scientists to the issues of specific expertise use at the stage of pre-trial investigation. The purpose of this article is to determine the general principles of specific expertise use at the stage of pre-trial investigation of crimes against foundations of national security of Ukraine. Methodological background: general scientific and special scientific methods of cognition. Principles of specific expertise use during investigation of criminal offenses are considered and characterized. In particular, it is determined that specific expertise is used during investigation of crimes against foundations of national security of Ukraine based on the following principles: independence of person who has special knowledge; legality; rule of law; research complexity; competitiveness; objectivity; comprehensiveness and completeness of specific expertise use; non-disclosure by a person who uses specific expertise while conducting investigative (search) actions, pre-trial investigation data and operational information; observance of constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens involved in pre-trial investigation procedure; compliance by person with specific expertise, specific expertise use exclusively within the limits of his competence.

Biological samples for examination: concepts, conditions, sampling tactics

During the commission of crimes, traces of biological origin are left on the objects of the environment, tools, clothing, and the body of the participants. To conduct an identification study, an expert needs to compare the traces of the crime with biological samples of the person being tested. Criteria for determining biological samples are proposed. The biological criterion means that the samples reflect the internal and external properties of a person as a biological organism. The informational criterion is that the samples meet certain requirements: undoubted origin, required quantity, proper quality, compatibility with traces of crime. The identification criterion establishes that the human properties reflected by the samples are individual, stable, cannot be deliberately altered by a person and are suitable for identification. The procedural criterion means that biological samples must be collected in a lawful manner. Based on these criteria, biological samples for examination include: body parts; secretions as products of human activity; imprints of the skin relief of the human body. The mandatory participants in the collection of biological samples as a procedural action are: persons from whom biological samples are collected; officials who conduct the collection of samples and are responsible for its legality and validity; a specialist or expert; witnesses; employees of the relevant law enforcement agencies (in the case of compulsory collection of biological samples). Optional participants are a defence counsel, legal representative, representative, lawyer, doctor at their request. During the compulsory collection of biological samples, in order to ensure the legality, objectivity, reliability of the objects of expert research, preservation of health and observance of human rights, it is necessary to comply with legal, ethical, medical and forensic conditions. The author proposes a general algorithm for the tactics of obtaining biological samples for examination at the stage of pre-trial investigation, which includes the preparatory, working and final stages.

Functional component of the criminal procedural status of the Prosecutor's Office Head

The article examines the functions of the Head of the Prosecutor’s Office in criminal proceedings as an integral part of his/her criminal procedural status. The existing approaches to understanding the concept of “criminal procedural status” and its analogues are identified. It is noted that the function of the head of a pre-trial investigation body differs from the function of a prosecutor - procedural supervisor (at the pre-trial investigation stage) and a prosecutor supporting the public prosecution (at the trial stages of criminal proceedings). The above is determined by the prosecutor's powers which are determined by the criminal procedure law. The expediency of distinguishing four functions of the Head of the Prosecutor’s Office in criminal proceedings is emphasized: procedural guidance, public prosecution, organisational and managerial function and quasi-judicial control function. Based on the analysis of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine provisions which vest the head of a prosecution body with procedural powers, the article establishes that some of these functions are exercised by the head of a prosecution body depending on his/her specific position (Prosecutor General, head of a regional prosecution office, etc.). It is also established that the approaches to determining the criminal procedural status of participants to criminal proceedings (subjects of criminal proceedings) available in the current scientific literature through the use of the terms “legal status” and “procedural status” are inaccurate, although not entirely wrong. Their use significantly expands the content of this category, which is illogical. The functions of the Head of the Prosecutor’s Office in criminal proceedings constitute the core, or basis, for determining his/her criminal procedural status in general, due to the close connection of this category with his/her powers (rights and obligations) in criminal proceedings, which opens up the possibility of studying other components of his/her status. It is also worth mentioning that under martial law, in certain circumstances, the Head of the Prosecutor’s Office may also perform the supervisory function of the court. These powers are unique and inherent only to the Head of the Prosecutor’s Office in criminal proceedings. Thus, the Head of the Prosecutor’s Office replaces the powers of the investigating judge to exercise the judicial control function, which indicates the quasi-judicial nature of such a function.

OBTAINING TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS IN CONDITIONS THAT ENSURE HIS SAFETY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

The scientific article is devoted to the study of procedural, organizational-tactical and psychological features of obtaining witness statements in conditions that ensure his safety in criminal proceedings. It was concluded that the tactics of obtaining statements during the interrogation of a witness at the stage of pre-trial investigation are formed depending on the typical interrogation program of a person who is in the status of a witness (eyewitness, witness, expert, whistleblower, confidant, etc.), his age, and depends on the investigator situations in specific criminal proceedings, from real and potential threats to such persons, their relatives and relatives. It is noted that in the case when there are sufficient grounds to believe that the life, housing, health, property of the witness, his family and relatives are in danger, his interrogation should be conducted in conditions that ensure the confidentiality of personal information. It is emphasized that when deciding on the question of conducting an interrogation of a witness, it is worth giving priority to the safety of the witness, his family and friends, without risking the loss of potential evidence. Arguments are given that, for tactical reasons, it is expedient to question a witness in a court session by an investigating judge during a pre-trial investigation, or in the mode of a video conference using technical means from another room, in particular outside the court premises, to ensure the confidentiality of personal information. It was emphasized that obtaining objective information from minors and ensuring their safety at the same time depends on the skillful organization by the investigators of the procedure of questioning such a witness with the participation of a legal representative and a psychologist, as well as taking measures to ensure the confidentiality of information about the minor. In cases where a witness declares illegal influence after testifying, in order to keep information about his identity confidential, it is advisable to conduct the interrogation again with the assignment of the pseudonym of the participant in the investigative (search) action to the witness. In order to expand the procedural capabilities of the witness and his representative, in particular with regard to ensuring the safety of the witness due to the existence of a danger to life and health, the position is advocated for granting the right to the witness and his legal representative to apply to the investigating judge with a request to interrogate such a person in a court session in order Art. 225 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, in particular the simultaneous interrogation of two or more already interrogated persons.

Problems of closing criminal proceedings due to the expiration of pre-trial investigation deadlines

The article is dedicated to addressing the current issues in the theory and practice of closing criminal proceedings during the pre-trial investigation stage, particularly focusing on the basis of closing due to the expiration of pre-trial investigation deadlines. The problem of closing criminal proceedings by the investigating judge based on paragraph 10 of Part 1 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine is currently the subject of active discussions among legal professionals. This basis is directly related to the pre-trial investigation stage and, according to the current established practice of the Supreme Court, is classified as exclusive competence of the prosecutor, limiting the Investigating Judge's ability to exercise effective judicial control during the pre-trial investigation stage. It is noted that the absence of these powers in the Investigating Judge entails the risk of violating the reasonable time requirements for pre-trial investigation, as the pre-trial investigation deadline is not just a formality. Enshrining in procedural law the prosecutor's obligation to apply to the court with an accusatory document or close the criminal proceedings as soon as possible but not later than the procedural deadline after notifying the suspect of the accusation is a guarantee of the fundamental right of individuals to have their cases heard within a reasonable time frame. Unfortunately, in practical terms, this guarantee is not always implemented, and the lack of effective judicial control only contributes to the spread of prosecutorial inactivity. The article suggests that the most optimal solution to this problem is the alternative competence of both the prosecutor and the Investigating Judge regarding the authority to close criminal proceedings during the pre-trial investigation stage. This would help achieve a balance of interests between the parties involved in criminal proceedings and prevent abuses of power. To improve the mechanism for ensuring compliance with reasonable deadlines, the author proposes expanding and specifying the powers of the Investigating Judge when closing criminal proceedings. Specifically, it is suggested to add Part 2-1 to Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine: «Criminal proceedings at the pre-trial investigation stage are closed by the Investigating Judge based on the grounds provided for in paragraph 10 of this article if the suspect does not object to the closure on these grounds.»

Особенности стадии предварительного исследования при идентификации лиц с измененной внешностью

The article reviews the dependence of results of identifi cation on expert's actions at the pre-trial investigation stage provided that a person has altered the appearance. The author analyzes cases that require provision of information on medical interventions in the appearance of an investigated person and their further complications as well as involving specialists from other spheres of scientifi c knowledge. The paper describes requirements for samples for comparative studies including the need to refl ect unchanged elements of the appearance. The publication emphasizes that interaction between an expert and the examination initiator produces a positive eff ect on the effi ciency.

Implementation of the principle of competition in the course of pre-trial investigation

The article is devoted to the study of the peculiarities of implementing the adversarial principle in the course of pre-trial investigation. Adversariality determines the image of the entire criminal process, since it implies its construction in which the functions of prosecution, defense and case resolution are separated from each other. This, in turn, gives the court’s verdict a special power of persuasion, increases its legal and social significance.
 The adversarial principle in the course of pre-trial investigation has its own structure, which consists of four interrelated elements: 1) the presence of the prosecution and the defense; 2) the presence of equal procedural rights for the prosecution and the defense; 3) the presence and clear separation of the functions of public prosecution, defense and trial; 4) the presence of an objective and impartial court.
 At the stage of pre-trial investigation, the adversarial nature of the parties is characterized by a number of circumstances, one of which is that the officials conducting the proceedings have power and administrative authority, unlike the defense. In the course of the study, the author substantiates the position that it is necessary to expand the powers of defense counsel with a view to intensifying his/her activities in implementing the principle of adversariality at the pre-trial investigation stage. In this regard, the author suggests that the CPC of Ukraine should include the following: a protocol form for recording the results of questioning of persons by the defense; provide for the liability of public authorities, local self-government bodies, enterprises, institutions, organizations, officials and individuals for failure to comply with the defense’s requests for the provision of necessary items and documents; supplement the CPC of Ukraine with a rule imposing on the investigator, prosecutor the obligation to timely notify the defense counsel of the time and place of the investigative (search) action in which he or she has the right to participate.

On the issue specificity of criminal proceedings concerning minors

The article is devoted to the study of the specifics of criminal proceedings involving minors, in the context of the norms of national legislation and certain scientific works. It has been determined that the special procedural position of children in criminal proceedings is determined by the age peculiarities of these субʼєктів. The actual international standards concerning the procedure of criminal procedural activity in proceedings involving minors are considered. It is noted that at the national level, the specificity of proceedings in cases of minors is represented primarily in the isolation of the legislative regulation of criminal procedural relations with the participation of these individuals, as evidenced by the provisions of Chapter 38 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine «Criminal proceedings against minors.».
 During the study, the opinions of domestic scientists on the most problematic issues related to the procedural features of criminal proceedings against persons who have not reached the age of majority were analyzed. As a result of a comprehensive analysis of the legal norms of criminal procedural legislation, it was proved that certain procedures and rules of criminal proceedings are adapted specifically to the needs of minors, although their basis are general legal norms. In particular, this fact is evidenced by the dualistic representation of the interests of the juvenile suspect and the accused, the special субʼєктний composition of the participants in criminal proceedings against minors and certain specific aspects both at the stage of pre-trial investigation of juvenile crimes and during subsequent court proceedings. The article also identified a number of problematic aspects related to the implementation of these provisions at the practical level, in the context of which it is proposed to introduce certain additions and changes to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
 It is considered necessary to consolidate the special principles of criminal proceedings against minors at the legislative level in the form of a separate article. The conclusion focuses on the fact that despite the existence of certain shortcomings in the legal regulation of proceedings in cases of minors, the criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine is developing in the right direction.

Effectiveness of Forensic Computer Modeling for Predicting Wartime Crimes

This article emphasises the importance of computer models in forensics and their potential for predicting criminal activity and preventing offences in the context of military confrontation. The purpose of this paper is to determine the possibility of using computer models to analyse and predict criminal activity during military confrontation. The research employed the following methods: historical method of studying law, logical approach, qualitative method, method of analysis, and method of legal modelling. The study found that forensic modelling is mainly used at the pre-trial investigation or trial stage. The analysis of modern armed conflicts gives grounds to conclude about the high efficiency of computer modelling in preventing wartime crimes. The academic novelty is the obtained results of using computer modelling to prevent potential offences as opposed to its widespread use at the stage of pre-trial investigation. The research prospects include the possibility of the potential study of forensic computer modelling algorithms for accurate prediction of types of offences during the war.

Features of pre-judicial investigation in criminal proceedings in foreign countries

The scientific article is devoted to the definition of certain features of the procedure for conducting a pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings of foreign countries. The origins of the separation of the «preliminary investigation» as a separate stage of the criminal process are established, as well as the relationship of national legal traditions and types of legal systems with the corresponding standards inherent in the criminal process is traced.
 The analysis of the criminal procedural legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, Great Britain and the French Republic was carried out. The main aspects of the pre-trial investigation and inquiry of the Federal Republic of Germany have been studied. It has been established where criminal proceedings begin, how the interaction between prosecutors and police officers is configured, which is free evidence. Attention is focused on the types of suspicions depending on the degree of probability and functional purpose.
 It was determined that the pre-trial investigation as an independent stage of criminal proceedings, according to the Criminal Procedure Law of Spain, is always the first in the criminal process. However, at the same time, the inquiry is in no way formally separated from the pre-trial investigation. The prosecutor and the investigating judge are united with the common goal of identifying the person who committed the crime and collecting the necessary evidence. The specifics of this stage depending on the type of proceedings are also indicated.
 The characteristic features of criminal proceedings in Great Britain, which do not include the stage of pre-trial investigation at all, are considered. Despite the possibility of the defense party to collect evidence independently, the police's activities are considered extra-procedural, and therefore all the factual data collected by them need to be presented to the magistrate and their further confirmation.
 The position and procedure for starting an investigation under French law is outlined. Her criminal process considers inquiry and preliminary investigation as separate independent stages. First of all, an inquiry is conducted, then a criminal prosecution is initiated, after which a preliminary investigation begins.
 The conclusion of the article emphasizes the need for coordinated work of law enforcement agencies based on the principles of the rule of law, legality and justice. The necessity of applying the experience of foreign countries in improving the pre-trial investigation of Ukraine is argued.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN "SPECIALIST'S OPINION" AND "EXPERT RESEARCH OPINION" IN CASES OF FORENSIC MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS ON A CONTRACTUAL BASIS

The article presents topical issues related to the appointment of forensic medical examinations and research at the request of the defense in criminal proceedings, as well as procedural features of the participation of specialists in expert work at the pre-trial investigation stage. Similarities and differences of subjects using special knowledge, namely specialist and expert, were studied. Ways to improve the participation of specialists in the pre-trial process are proposed.
 Aim of the work. The purpose of the work is to determine the differences between the "Specialist's Opinion" and the "Expert Research Conclusion" in cases of forensic medical examinations on a contractual basis.
 Results. It was established that "Expert's opinion", "Specialist's opinion", "Consultation" cannot correspond to the expert's opinion according to the following criteria: the qualification requirements for persons with special knowledge are different, and the qualification requirements for a specialist at the regulatory level are not defined at all. Similarities and differences of subjects using special knowledge, namely specialist and expert, were studied. Ways to improve the participation of specialists in the pre-trial process are proposed.
 Conclusions. If, in order to obtain a specialist's opinion, all the requirements inherent in an expert's opinion must be followed, then the question arises of the feasibility of obtaining such an opinion, instead of evaluating the evidence in a method proven by practice, namely, conducting a forensic medical examination. "Expert's opinion", "Specialist's opinion", "Consultation" cannot correspond to an expert's opinion according to the following criteria: the qualification requirements for persons with special knowledge are different, and the qualification requirements for a specialist at the regulatory level are not defined at all. It is expedient to amend Article 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine on the procedure for warning an expert about responsibility for a knowingly false conclusion and refusal without valid reasons to perform the duties assigned to him in the case of providing the conclusions of an expert study, on a contractual basis. Article 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine should be supplemented with paragraph 71 of the following content: "A copy of the agreement with the expert institution on conducting the examination, a copy of the receipt for payment of the appointed examination shall be attached to the decision of the investigating judge on the commission of the examination. In Article 71 "Basics of the legislation of Ukraine on health care" it is necessary to introduce a provision on the possibility of conducting a forensic medical examination at the request of the defense party or the victim.We consider it expedient to: 1) create in higher education institutions (medical universities) advisory groups of scientific and pedagogical workers (docents, professors), 2) have them undergo thematic improvement cycles in medical jurisprudence and the basics of forensic medicine.

Pre-Trial Detention and It‘s Alternatives in Lithuania, Estonia, Romania and Slovakia

The article deals with the regulation of grounds and duration of the pre-trial detention, as well as its alternative measures during pre-trial investigation stage in Estonian, Lithuanian, Romania and Slovak law. In addition, the article compares the available statistical data on the application of pre-trial detention and its alternative measures in the mentioned countries, as well as evaluates the significance of the trends of pre-trial detention and its alternative measures to the total number of imprisoned persons.

Examining Custody Assessment Criteria: A Comparative Analysis of U.S. & Kuwaiti Legal Systems

This research paper conducts a thorough comparative analysis of custody assessment criteria employed in the legal systems of the United States and Kuwait. The freedom of the accused during the pre-trial investigation stage is one of the most important issues related to human rights and freedoms. The study adopted the analytical method of legal texts, judicial rulings, and jurisprudential opinions between two systems belonging to different legal families, namely the system in the United States of America and the system in the State of Kuwait. The study showed that the legal system in the United States of America addresses the factors that play a role in determining the decision to detain the accused during the pretrial investigation stage in a better and more in-depth manner than the treatment adopted by the Kuwaiti legislators. The study also indicated that the American legislative treatment is preferable to a procedural reason related to the American system. Finally, this study recommended the need to reorganize the issue in Kuwaiti law by adopting many humanitarian aspects related to the accused in the issue of the decision to release or detain the accused during the pre-trial investigation stage.

ПІДСТАВИ ДЛЯ СКАСУВАННЯ ПІДОЗРИ У КРИМІНАЛЬНОМУ ПРОЦЕСІ

The article examines the issue of grounds for the cancellation of suspicion. It is emphasized that the presence of reasonable suspicion and the application of a preventive measure presupposes a correct written notification of a person suspected of committing a criminal offense, which must be carried out in accordance with the procedure established by law. Suspicion is a procedural decision that is made at the pre-trial investigation stage, based on the collected evidence. It is based on the assumption of the involvement of a specific person in the commission of a criminal offense and is formed on the basis of the still inconclusive results of the investigation. This decision is made by the prosecutor or the investigator with the prosecutor's approval. As a conclusion, it is emphasized that the grounds for canceling a notification of suspicion may be a violation of procedural norms and requirements of the law, as well as the absence of strong evidence to substantiate the suspicion. The decision of the investigating judge on the refusal to satisfy the complaint on the notification of the change of the previously notified suspicion may be challenged in the appeal procedure, in particular, when the procedural norms are violated or significant deficiencies in the preparation or delivery of the notification are found. At the same time, it is also important to take into account the time frame of changes to the legislation regarding the preparation and delivery of reports of suspicion. Often in judicial practice, there is a contradiction in the decision of whether a case should be investigated on the basis of evidence or only the presence and weight of this evidence. Therefore, for the effective protection of the rights and interests of the accused, it is important to have a clear understanding of procedural rules and legal principles, as well as to defend them in court on the basis of relevant evidence and well-balanced arguments. Keywords: criminal proceedings, suspicion, notification of suspicion, appeal of suspicion

The application of separate criteria for evaluating the expert conclusion by the investigating judge at the pre-trial investigation stage

The article highlights that the final stage of forensic examination is evaluation of the expert conclusion by the investigating judge to determine the role and significance of the fact established by the forensic expert and, subsequently, to adopt a fair decision by the court.
 The Article Purpose is to specify evaluation criteria used by the investigating judge when evaluating the expert conclusion at the stage of pre-trial investigation of offenses. The authors have concluded that expert conclusions are subject to evaluation by the investigating judge on the basis of general grounds.
 The article analyzes and provides a detailed description of individual criteria for evaluating expert conclusions (adequacy, admissibility, veracity, objectivity, legality, authenticity, completeness, etc.).
 As a result of carried out research, the need to create a publicly available and legislatively established system of criteria for evaluating expert conclusions has been proven, since the criteria for evaluating the expert conclusion defined by procedural legislation are not exhaustive and do not allow the investigating judge to carry out a comprehensive evaluation not only of the expert conclusions but also of other sources of evidence at the pre-trial investigation stage.